2Cor10:5 - Taking Every Thought Captive

Contra Liberalism

THE Christian Church is indeed older than Holy Scripture, that is, older than the written Word of God. Until the time of Moses, God called His Church into existence and preserved it by His oral Word (viva voce) The Christian Church came into existence immediately after the Fall, when God, having applied the Law to fallen men orally (Gen. 3:8–14), gave mankind the oral promise of the Woman’s Seed, who was to destroy the works of the devil, that is, free men from the guilt of sin and all its consequences (Gen. 3:15), and Adam and Eve believed the “first Gospel.” Through the oral Word, proclaimed in various ways, God continued to build His Church until the days of Moses.

But after God had chosen to transmit His Word in writing, the Church of every age was strictly bound to the written Word of God. No man was permitted to add anything to the written Word nor to subtract anything from it (Joshua 23:6; Deut. 4:2). The Church of the Old Testament was rigidly bound to the written Word of God as its complete canon, to which only God could add from time to time. In the time of the New Testament God added the writings of the Apostles to the books of the Prophets as the foundation of faith. Of the Church of the New Testament Paul says Eph. 2:20: “Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.” The Scriptures of the Apostles are co-ordinated with those of the Prophets because it is one and the same Spirit of Christ speaking through both. “Not unto themselves, but unto us, they [the Prophets, who had “the Spirit of Christ”] did minister the things which are now [in the days of the New Testament] reported unto you” (1 Pet. 1:10–12). With the Word of the New Testament Apostles, God’s revelation of the doctrine to His Church is entirely completed, for when Christ in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) says: “Neither pray I for these alone,” the Apostles, “but for them also which shall believe on Me through their Word,” through the Word of the Apostles, He is thereby making the Word of His Apostles the basis of faith for the entire New Testament era. That through the ministry of hundreds of thousands who are not Apostles men are brought to faith in Jesus has its cause in this, that these hundreds of thousands, yes, millions, of men, do not speak their own words, but the Word of the Apostles and Prophets. We quote once more Luther’s remarks on the words of David: “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me” (2 Sam. 23:2): “Such a boast neither we nor anyone who is not a Prophet may utter. What we may do if we are also sanctified and have the Holy Ghost, is this, that we boast of being catechumens and pupils of the Prophets—we repeat and preach what we have heard and learned from the Prophets and Apostles, and are also sure that the Prophets have taught it. In the Old Testament such men are called ‘the children of the prophets’ who offer nothing of their own and nothing new, as the Prophets do, but teach what they have learned from the Prophets, and they are the ‘Israel,’ as David calls them, for whom he writes the Psalms.” (St. L. III:1890.)

Only one question remains: Where does the Church of the New Testament find this Word of the Apostles with certainty? The Apostles themselves point us to their Scriptures. They declare, in the first place, that their written Word is in content identical with their spoken Word. The Apostle John says: “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you … and these things write we unto you” (1 John 1:3–4). Paul also co-ordinates his oral and his written word: “Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Not everything that Christ and the Apostles taught has been recorded (John 21:25), but the instruction given in the writings of the Apostles is abundant, yea, superabundant, since the same thoughts are stated not only once but often. “To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe” (Phil. 3:1). In the second place, we see that the Apostles insisted already very firmly on the sola Scriptura. Even in the days of the Apostles the same false sources of knowledge and the same false norms were prevalent which later on and down to our day have plagued Christendom, such as spurious prophecy or “spirits,” alleged word of the Apostles, or “tradition,” alleged epistles of the Apostles. Over against all such claims Paul points to his written Word as the safe source and norm of the true Apostolic doctrine. Genuine “prophecy” and “spirit” were indeed present in the Apostolic Church; therefore Christian congregations were instructed not to reject a priori this Spirit and prophecy, but to apply to them the test of the Apostle’s Word. When in the congregation at Corinth “prophecy” and “spirit” placed themselves alongside, and even above, the Apostolic authority, Paul wrote to the congregation (1 Cor. 14:37 f.): “If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” This means that whoever will not acknowledge as divine norm what Paul had written should be recognized as a pseudo prophet and be treated as an ignoramus. The passage 2 Thess. 2:2: “That ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled neither by spirit nor by word nor by letter as from us, as that the Day of Christ is at hand,” is important because here the Apostle sets his written instruction against “spirit,” against the alleged word of the Apostle (tradition), and against the alleged epistle of the Apostle. Christians should not permit themselves to be “shaken in mind or troubled” by any such pretensions. In order that the congregations might be able to distinguish spurious from genuine epistles of the Apostle, Paul wrote the greeting with his own hand (2 Thess. 3:17): “The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.”

With so much talk about the Kingdom of God especially in the Emergent / neo-liberal camp, it behooves us to seek a solid definition of what Jesus meant by that term. Here is a good working definition given by the late Kenneth Bailey in his book,Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. In this quote, Baily is commenting on the first Beatitude, "Bless-ed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven":

"what precisely is the kingdom of God? There is is no simple answer to this question. Everything Jesus said and did is in some way related to the kingdom of God. It has to do with the rule of God in the lives of individuals and societies. The Lord's Prayer includes the words, "Thy Kingdom com," which obviously looks to a future that is unfolding. Yet the kingdom has already come in Jesus Christ who said, "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20).

We live in the interim between the inauguration of the rule (kingdom) of God in the coming of Jesus Christ and its completion at the end of history. Our struggle for peace and justice is part of our discipleship as we work for and await the coming of that kingdom on earth as a gift of God.

In this Beatitude Jesus declares that the poor in spirit already possess the kingdom. Many people at the time of Jesus used the phrase the kingdom of God to describe a Jewish state where God alone was King. In contrast, Jesus declared that the kingdom was already present in the poor in spirit (not among the Zealots).

The Old Syriac translation of this text reads, "Happy it is for the poor in spirit, that theirs is the kingdom of heaven." As mentioned, the second line is not a reward for the first line. Rather the poor in spirit already posses the kingdom.

This begs the question, what is meant by the term poor in spirit? The Old Testament, which is what Jesus had in view when He gave this Beattitude defines the poor in spirit this way:

“But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.” (Isaiah 66:2)

“The LORD is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.” (Psalms 34:18)

“For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.” (Isaiah 57:15)

Another way to describe the kingdom of God is to say that it is a kingdom of the forgiveness of sins. The Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said it this way:

“May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Colossians 1:11–14)

Knowing then that the poor in spirit, those crushed by the law of God and brought to true repentance, contrition and the forgiveness of their sins are the ones who presently possess the Kingdom, Jesus told this parable:

“He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayedthus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”” (Luke 18:9–14)

That is why, when we obey our Lord Jesus Christ and proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins, in His name to all nations (Luke 24:46-47) we are in fact heralding the kingdom of God, because only the poor in spirit already possess our Lord's kingdom.

(To see what the Word of God really says in each of these verses hover your cursor over the verse reference)

“Now doubt is the uncertainty of things hoped for, the questioning of things not seen. For by doubt the people of old received their commendation. By doubt we are uncertain as to whether or not the universe was created by the word of God,” (Hebrews 11:1–3)

“And we know that for those who doubt God all things work together for good, for those who are uncertain that they've been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

“Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your doubt has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.” (Matthew 9:22)

“And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind Jesus and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, “If I have enough doubt, I will be made well.” Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your doubt has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.” (Matthew 9:20–22)

“And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was confident, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little doubt, why did you have confidence?”” (Matthew 14:28–31)

“Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your doubt! Be it done for you as you humbly haven’t desired.” And her daughter was healed instantly.” (Matthew 15:28)

“When Jesus entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you doubt that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord we doubt it.” Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your unbelief be it done to you.” And their eyes were opened.” (Matthew 9:28–30)

““For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever doubts him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

“Whoever does not believe in him is not condemned, but whoever does believe is condemned already, because he has believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:18)

“I write these things to you who are too humble to believe in the name of the Son of God that you may doubt that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your unbelief and doubt are proclaimed in all the world.” (Romans 1:8)

“these are written so that you may doubt that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by doubting you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31)

“We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your doubt is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.” (2 Thessalonians 1:3)

“If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing” (1 Timothy 6:3–4)

In this segment of July 21st's edition of the Fighting for the Faith radio program I lay out the clear Biblical teaching from Jesus' own words demonstrates that contrary to what liberals, progressives and emergents may tell you, feeding the poor is NOT the gospel. Jesus didn't come to give people temporal bread but to give them the eternal bread of life.

If you'd like to hear the rest of this episode of Fighting for the Faith click here.

Was the Story of Jonah just a big mythological fish story? Are the liberal critical "scholars" correct when they say that the story of Jonah can't possibly be real history?

Well, who are you going to believe? Jesus or the liberal critical "scholars"? For you see, Jesus, who is God in human flesh, believed the story of Jonah to be literal history:

“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:38–41)

It's not wise to have a view of the scriptures that differs from Jesus' view because no one has better credentials than our crucified and risen Lord.

If you listen to the "Social Justice" religious left then you might easily be misled into believing poverty only has one cause and that cause is free market capitalism. In the propaganda narratives spewed by the left, the poor are always cast as the helpless victims of an evil and unfair economic system that is exploiting them. This one-size fits all approach to poverty and its causes is not only naive but it is outright deceitful.

What are the causes of poverty?

There are many causes of poverty and it is beyond the scope of this article to provide an extensive look at all of the causes of poverty. Instead this article will challenge the assumptions of the one-size fits all poverty victim narratives offered by the "Social Justice" left.

Yes, it is true that there are well documented instances of greedy and unscrupulous business owners and CEOs and corporate management teams who, in an effort to maximize corporate profits have resorted to enslaving people, including women and children. It is important to note that when examples of this type of exploitation surface that it does not reflect the inherent nature of free market capitalism but instead demonstrates the bad character and criminal activity of those who've made the decisions to enslave and exploit. Saying that free market capitalism is to blame for these instances of exploitation is like blaming constitutional liberty when there is an increase in the crime rate in any particular city in the United States and then offering martial law as the solution. Fact is poverty has many many causes, two of which are worth noting. The first is evil totalitarian governments and another is laziness.

Just like some heads of corporations break the law and enslave and exploit, heads of state also rig their own country's system so that they and their cronies can steal the wealth and resources of their own nation at the expense of those whom they should be serving. The examples of this type of governmental abuse throughout the ages of human history are too numerous to count. One could argue that the temptation to corruption of governmental power is so strong that good rulers are the exception in human history rather than the norm. This is precisely why the founders of the United States framed the Constitution the way that they did. The goal was to distribute power across multiple branches of government to keep it from being centralized so that the government would serve the people rather than enslave them. When a bad government enslaves its people, especially the way Marxist governments do, scarcity and mass poverty becomes the norm.

In light of this fact, those who are truly concerned for the world's poor would do well to focus their efforts on bringing freedom and a true free market to those countries where corrupt governments have enslaved its citizens. In the case where corrupt corporate managers are doing the exploiting, their crimes need to be uncovered and those responsible need to be brought to justice.

The other cause of poverty that is worth noting is laziness. Yes that is right. There are some people who are poor and it is their own fault. They are not victims and they are not being exploited. Instead they are poor because they just won't work. These are those who feel entitled to sit on their laurels and mooch off other people. Those in the religious left rarely if ever talk about such people because it doesn't fit their victim narratives. Yet, the Bible has plenty to say about them. Here are just a few examples:

“The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied.” (Proverbs 13:4)

“How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man” (Proverbs 6:9–11)

“The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor.” (Proverbs 12:24)

“He who gathers in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps in harvest is a son who brings shame.” (Proverbs 10:5)

“Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6–12)

To put it more bluntly, those who can work but refuse to do so are disobeying God and their poverty is the just wage for their laziness. Notice also that the Bible doesn't consider it inherently unjust that there are unequal economic results. Diligent and hardworking folk have more money, more property and more resources than the slothful and in God's economy that is exactly how it should be. If it is always unjust that some people have more than others as the "Social Justice" Neo-Marxist theologians would have you believe, then God would never have said "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" or “A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.” In fact, God's word knows nothing of the so-called human right of "economically equal results". In this fallen creation, God's economy requires that we eat bread "by the sweat of our brows" (Gen. 3:18) and those who refuse to work do not have an divine entitlement to take from those who work diligently and have taken the time to learn the skills necessary to increase their value in the free market.

Maybe this is why Benjamin Franklin noted:

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Poverty is a complex issue with many causes. Helping the poor and saving out a portion of our resources in order to assist them is the epitome of what it means to "love our neighbor as ourselves." That being the case, it is important that we have a realistic understanding of poverty and its complex causes and that our efforts are spent working to free those who are enslaved by corrupt governments and corrupt corporations as well as offering financial assistance and relief to those who are willing to work but are genuinely unable and also giving a swift kick in the butt to those who are lazy and selfishly refuse to work but instead feel entitled to live off the hard work of others.

An excerpt from Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen pages 21-27

But, it will be said, Christianity is a life, not a doctrine. The assertion is often made, and it has an appearance of godliness. But it is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian. For to say that "Christianity is a life" is to make an assertion in the sphere of history. The assertion does not lie in the sphere of ideals; it is far different from saying that Christianity ought to be a life, or that the ideal religion is a life. The assertion that Christianity is a life is subject to historical investigation exactly as is the assertion that the Roman Empire under Nero was a free democracy. Possibly the Roman Empire under Nero would have been better if it had been a free democracy, but the historical question is simply whether as a matter of fact it was a free democracy or no. Christianity is an historical phenomenon, like the Roman Empire, or the Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. And as an historical phenomenon it must be investigated on the basis of historical evidence.

Is it true, then, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life? The question can be settled only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity. Recognition of that fact does not involve any acceptance of Christian belief; it is merely a matter of common sense and common honesty. At the foundation of the life of every corporation is the incorporation paper, in which the objects of the corporation are set forth. Other objects may be vastly more desirable than those objects, but if the directors use the name and the resources of the corporation to pursue the other objects they are acting ultra vires of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It is perfectly conceivable that the originators of the Christian movement had no right to legislate for subsequent generations but at any rate they did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that should choose to bear the name of "Christian." It is conceivable that Christianity may now have to be abandoned, and another religion substituted for it; but at any rate the question what Christianity is can be determined only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity.

The beginnings of Christianity constitute a fairly definite historical phenomenon. The Christian movement originated a few days after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. It is doubtful whether anything that preceded the death of Jesus can be called Christianity. At any rate, if Christianity existed before that event, it was Christianity only in a preliminary stage. The name originated after the death of Jesus, and the thing itself was also something new. Evidently there was an important new beginning among the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. At that time is to be placed the beginning of the remarkable movement which spread out from Jerusalem into the Gentile world--the movement which is called Christianity.

About the early stages of this movement definite historical information has been preserved in the Epistles of Paul, which are regarded by all serious historians as genuine products of the first Christian generation. The writer of the Epistles had been in direct communication with those intimate friends of Jesus who had begun the Christian movement in Jerusalem, and in the Epistles he makes it abundantly plain what the fundamental character of the movement was. But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine.

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul's lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical--not even, perhaps, the temporal--order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God's law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern "practical" Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. The guilty soul enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all.

Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ. "Just as I am without one plea, But that Thy blood was shed for me"-- that was what Paul was contending for in Galatia; that hymn would never have been written if the Judaizers had won. And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.

Sixty-seven years ago, the combined blood, treasure and matériel of the free nations of Western Civilization defeated the most horrifically evil regime to ever arise in the known history of the sons of men, Nazi Germany.

Since the defeat of Hitler and the Axis powers, scholars have been looking for an answer—an answer to a vexing and perplexing question, “How does a society comprised of reasonably well educated citizens, modern technology and an affluent culture turn into a collective pack of murderous thugs devoid of a moral compass or conscience?”

The standard schoolbook answer put forward by historians talks about the political and economic hardship and unrest in Germany in the wake of her defeat in World War I and the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles as the primary reasons for the rise of the Nazi party.

On the surface this answer seems reasonable enough but when you study the writings of those who fled Nazi Germany shortly after the rise of Adolf Hitler you discover that economics and wounded national pride are not considered to be the core explanations given for the rise of the Nazis. Those who lived through those turbulent years instead point to the spiritual break down of Europe and the rise of irrational philosophy as the primary forces that breathed life into the Fascist regimes of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler.

Many people today have a woefully limited understanding of the philosophical and political ideas that gave rise to Hitler. Most give little or no thought to the subject. It’s as if Hitler fell out of the sky or was a fluke of nature. Many simply dismiss the subject and think that Hitler was “just a madman” who hated Jews and thought the Aryan race was superior to every other race on the planet and he was tragically in a position that allowed him to act on those beliefs. But, few understand or remember that Hitler was a Fascist and that in the 1930’s, prior to World War II and the establishment of the concentration camps, the word “Fascism” had a definition and a meaning. Rather than being a fluke, Hitler was instead a true product of his time and his political ideas were the direct result of the philosophical, political, religious and economic ideas of the Völkish period.[2]

Said Mussolini, “If each age has its doctrine, the innumerable symptoms indicated that the doctrine of our age is the Fascist one.”[3] When Mussolini penned this sentence he did not have in mind the currently popular and historically ignorant definitions of Fascism that most people possess today, definitions like:

The phrase “Epic Fail” comes to mind when I read such ignorant and uninformed definitions of Fascism. Anyone who truly understands Fascism understands that it is notoriously difficult to define precisely because it CANNOT be primarily defined by means of a positive ideology.

Here is how the late Peter Drucker, who grew up within the philosophical conversation of the Völkish milieu of Austria and Germany and who later fled the Third Reich in 1934, described Fascism:

“Fascist totalitarianism has no positive theology, but confines itself to refuting, fighting and denying all traditional ideas and ideologies...Fascism not only refutes all old ideas but denies, for the first time in European history, the foundation on which all former political and social systems had been built...”[5]

A good illustration would be to liken Fascism to antimatter. Physicists tell us that matter has an evil twin called antimatter and when matter and antimatter come in contact with each other they are both destroyed. Antimatter is difficult for us to comprehend because of the fact that we have only experienced matter. Its difficult to imagine a substance that is the exact opposite of matter. Fascism is equally difficult to understand because its hallmark is NOT that it affirms anything but that it denies practically everything. Fascism is ANTI transcendent truth. Fascism is ANTI individual rights. Fascism is ANTI rational thought. Fascism is man taking his God-given gift of reason and using that reason to deconstruct and debunk reason itself and all societal and religious institutions that rely upon reason.

Said Peter Drucker, “I...realized that the new totalitarianisms, especially Nazism in Germany, were indeed a genuine revolution, aiming at the overthrow of something much more fundamental than economic organization: values, beliefs, and basic morality. It was a revolution which replaced hope by despair, [and] reason by magic...”[6]

Drucker further goes on to state that, “Nazi leaders have prided themselves publicly on their disregard for truth...”[7]

If Drucker is correct, then the very first blitzkrieg of the German Fascists was not waged against Poland, Belgium nor the Netherlands. The very first victims of the Fascist revolution were values, beliefs and basic morality. Once these citadels fell then there were no moral, philosophical or rational obstacles left to stop the Fascists from committing the most unthinkable crimes.

What is historically vital to note about Drucker's description of Fascism is that it was published in 1939 and predates the wartime atrocities committed by the Nazis. Drucker's definition was constructed from his firsthand experiences while living and breathing and conversing with Fascism in the years prior to Hitler's rise to power. Drucker's definition demonstrates that Fascism should not be defined by the brutality that it ultimately engaged in. Instead, it should be defined by the irrational, deconstructive philosophy that it embraced. The logical consequences of this anti-rational philosophy were the unspeakable evils committed by the men who, having been stripped of transcendent truth and morals had no checks upon their sinful human nature. One could argue that the day the Fascists succeeded in deconstructing values, beliefs, basic morality and reason itself was also the day when the foundations were poured for Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.

Ernst Nolte, in his book Three Faces of Fascism said, “Georg Lukács in his book, Die Zerstörung der Vernuft... attempts to describe philosophical irrationalism as an essential component of and background to National Socialism, as the ‘reactionary answer to the great problems of the past hundred and fifty years.’ On Germany’s path ‘from Schelling to Hitler’ is to be found practically every name of any stature in German philosophy after Hegel’s death: Schopenhauer and Nietzche, Dilthey and Simmel, Scheler and Heidegger, Jaspers and Max Weber.”[8]

This reaction against rational thought and its corresponding blatant disregard for transcendent truth is precisely what is at the heart of the oft quoted Fascist maxim, “a lie becomes accepted as the truth if it is only repeated often enough”.

Said Drucker, “Fascism, however, goes much further in its negation of the past than any earlier political movement, because it makes this negation its main platform. What is even more important, it denies simultaneously ideas and tendencies which are in themselves antithetic. It is antiliberal, but also anticonservative; antireligious and antiatheist, anticapitalist and antisocialist...—the list could be continued indefinitely.”[9]

Today, Fascism has a new name. Even though the name has changed, the exact same irrational philosophies that helped give rise to the 20th Century totalitarian Fascist regimes of Italy, Spain and Germany are alive and well today. The new name that Fascism has taken for itself is Postmodernity.[10]

From Foucault to Derrida, John Franke to Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren to Doug Pagitt, Pete Rollins to Tony Jones all of these men are disciples of and dealers in the irrational philosophies of such men as Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.

Just like their 20th Century counterparts these philosophers and theologians are characterized not by their positive ideologies and theologies but by their strident attacks against rational thought, knowable transcendent truth, individual rights, individual salvation, transcendent morals, systematic theology, and the bedrock reasoning upon which all of the societal structures of Western Civilization are built, including Constitutional Republicanism, the free market and the Church.

Fascism was not defeated on the battlefields of Western Europe. Their armies were defeated. But, Fascism lived on. It lurked in the shadows for decades and was ultimately imported to the United States and the European democracies through universities and institutions of higher education. Fascism took a new shape in the field of literary criticism through the postmodern deconstructionism of Derrida and has now grown like a cancer that has spread from literary criticism to philosophy to politics to economics to religion. Once again the very foundations of thought are under assault. Once again the rights of the individual are being deconstructed and the idea of the primacy of the community (Gemeinschaft) is being exalted. Once again all transcendent truths and morals are being deconstructed and attacked. They are being replaced with an irrational epistemology founded upon subjective feelings (authenticity) with a hatred for so-called meta-narratives. Once again free market capitalism is under assault and being accused of causing the oppression of the poor and creating an unfair system that creates haves and have-nots. Once again there is talk of ‘creating the millennial Kingdom of God’ here on earth by destroying or ‘redeeming’ all the political and economic structures of society.

The Postmodern conversation has taken place before. It was the philosophical conversation of the 20th Century European Fascists. Its a conversation that had no answers but only deconstructing questions. The same is true today. But the big difference between 20th Century Fascism and 21st Century Postmodernity is that this time the conversation is global.

---

1 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Dir. Peter Jackson. 2001. DVD. Taken from the narration in the prologue to the film.

2 See Poewe, Karla, and Irving Hexham. "The Völkisch Modernist Beginnings of National Socialism: Its Intrusion into the Church and Its Antisemitic Consequence." Religion Compass 3.4 (2009): 676-96. Print.

“And God spoke all these words: ...“You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:1–6)

What does this mean?

Answer: We should fear, love, and trust in God above all things.

Are there other gods beside the God of the Bible?

Answer: No. The One True God has revealed in His word that He and He alone is the one true God who made the heavens and the earth. God says that all the other gods of the nations of the earth are worthless idols.

Where does God say these things?

Psalms 96:1–6 “Oh sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth! Sing to the LORD, bless his name; tell of his salvation from day to day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples! For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are worthless idols, but the LORD made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and beauty are in his sanctuary”

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior.” (Isaiah 43:10–11)

Isaiah 44:6 - “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”

Isaiah 44:24 - “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,”

Jeremiah 10:10–15 - “But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation.

Thus shall you say to them: “The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.”

It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses. Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, for his images are false, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish.”

Jeremiah 51:14–18 - “The LORD of hosts has sworn by himself: Surely I will fill you with men, as many as locusts, and they shall raise the shout of victory over you.

“It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses. Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, for his images are false, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish.”

Acts 17:29–31 - “Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.””

Will God count worship to other gods in other religions as worship to Him?

Answer: Absolutely not. God has revealed in his Holy Word that the worship of other gods and idols breaks the first commandment and that God will not share His glory with false gods and idols. Instead, God calls mankind to abandon the worship of idols and all other religions, which are false, repent of their idolatry and sins, be forgiven and trust in, worship and serve the One True God alone.

Where does God say these things?

Isaiah 42:8 -“I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.”

Isaiah 48:11 - “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.”

Psalms 97:7 - “All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols”

Isaiah 42:17 - “They are turned back and utterly put to shame, who trust in carved idols, who say to metal images, “You are our gods.””

1 Corinthians 8:4–6 - “we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

Aside from the false gods of other religions, are there other things that people make into to gods or idols?

Answer: Yes. An idol is anything that your fear, love and trust in above the One True God.

Put more plainly, your god is that which you love, trust and fear most in my life. You expect your comfort, good and delight from your god. Here are some questions for self-reflection in order to help you identify and repent of your sins of idolatry.

• Do I look to God my heavenly Father, for all love, good and joy?

• Is everything measured for me by what pleases me?

• In all things am I self-centered and selfish?

• Do I see my worry and fretting as sin against trusting God?

• Do I complain about the troubles, people, work and suffering God lays on me?

• Do I love the things God gives me more than I love Him? And do I cling to what God takes away, even though He gives me Himself?

As you have reflected on your life and the idols that you have erected and trusted in, know that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins of idolatry. In coming to understand your idolatries as sin the Holy Spirt has begun working repentance and contrition in you. Hear now the comforting words of forgiveness of those sins from God's Word which states:

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:8–9)

“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.

I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.” (Psalms 32:1–5)

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:4–6)

Search

Featured Book

Broken: 7 ''Christian'' Rules That Every Christian Ought to Break as Often as Possible

There are only two kinds of spirituality in the world. One is false, and one is true. One is the manifestation of the old evil foe who has sent many false spiritualties out into the world, and the other is the holy spirituality found only in faith in the one true God. One is a lie, and one is real.
But which is which?
Click Here to Purchase Broken and Learn the Truth!